BRUSSELS, Oct 6 (IPS) When it comes to advice on the safety of biotechnological
innovation, most Europeans believe that the greater the distance from manufacturers
and officials, the more trustworthy the source.

An opinion poll of purchasers across the European Union put independent
consumer organisations, followed by environmental protection groups, as
by far the most trusted source of advice on the new generation of bioengineered
products now appearing in shops world wide and presently transforming medical
science.

Public confidence in the two's views was far ahead of that vested in
industry, political parties and trade unions, and even that given to public
agencies and religious bodies. In part a measure of the contribution of
independent NGOs to the debate, the poll, released last week, also showed
the depth of doubt among EU citizens facing radical changes in biological
science.

The two biotechnological development that most concern EU citizens are
the introduction of human genes into animals to produce organs for human
transplants and the use of modern biotechnlogy in food production.

Sixty one percent tended to agree that the innovations posed a risk,
found the survey, conducted by International Research Associates for the
EU's executive Commission. Though most did not see the science itself as
either purely good or purely bad, seven out of 10 expected that dangerous
new diseases will be created in the next 20 years through the development
of bioengineering.

The study acknowledges that experts often seem to fail to understand
public concerns, and that the general public appears insufficiently informed
about modern biotechnology.

Nevertheless, fear of biotechnology is not the result of ignorance.
''It is rather the case that those who are the most ignorant on the subject
tend to be less concerned,'' the survey authors concluded. ''Being more
informed does not necessarily mean bei ng less worried.''

''Consumers are concerned about the long term environmental effects
of releasing new genetically engineerd organisms into delicately balanced
ecosystems,'' says Consumers International (CI), a global alliance of more
than 200 consumer groups.

''Because the effects are so difficult to predict, it is vital to have
internationally agreed and enforceable rules for research protocols, field
trials, and post marketing surveillance.''

The CI voice special concern about field trials of new biotechnology
in developing countries, where there is often a lack of regulation to protect
individuals. Others are concerned at the way that genetic material is being
patented for commercial purpose s by transnational corporations.

Confronted by these concerns, the Commission issued a directive upholding
the bioengineers' rights. The directive effectively confirmed the legal
right to 'own' biological material while nominally restricting patenting
of actual varieties of flora.

It was immediately slammed by Green party members of the European Parliament
and NGOs. The Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) warns that
while the directive says that plant and animals cannot be patented, it
is still possible to patent plant and animal biological material as long
as the end product is not called a 'variety'.

''This (directive) is a major setback for all of us who have been fighting
for the sustainable management of biodiversity in the hands of local communities,''
says Henk Hobbelink, GRAIN's director.

GRAIN says that farmers now freely using seeds could be expected to
seek permission and pay royalties in the future if the genetic makeup of
the seed they use is later patented. Plant material recognised for hardiness
and high yield is being sought out,

especially in the developing world, by bioengineers and is being quickly
patented by their employers.

''Many examples already exist where companies take local varieties from
these farmers and patent them and their genetic contents without innovation.
The directive negates the rights of the 'original breeders' from the South,''
claims GRAIN.

Experts say that the directive circumvents the European Patent Convention's
existing ban on the patenting of plant varieties, by allowing companies
to patent entire crops, such as transgenic soya beans. The directive in
its current form would legalise su ch patents and effectively concentrate
crop research in the hands of a few biotech corporations, they add.

The 1992 Rio Biodiversity Convention, signed by all the EU member states,
explicity requires signatories to ensure that patent systems protect the
historic rights of use of traditional farmers. The directive is silent
on this obligation.

The eventual decison of the European Parliament to pass the directive
in the face of Green opposition in July drew special fire.

By allowing the EU to declare that genes could be 'inventions', European
parliamentarians ''sold out to the pharmaceutical and biotech industry,''
says geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher of the Women's Environmental Networks'
spokesperson

With the parliament's verdict in hand the matter goes to the EU's ruling
Council, which is likely to adopt a position in November. At least three
EU countries are considering fighting parts of the ruling, taking it to
the European Court if necessary. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reclaim the Streets PO BOX 9656 London N4 4JY 0171 281 4621(this tel number
is not for Genetics info) <rts@gn.apc.org>
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/rts.html